River access costs extra

Honestly, a Japanese-style capsule hotel and net cafe would probably do very well in a university environment.

Granted, that's still charging people for homelessness, which doesn't help any of the underlying problems. It's just slightly less dystopian since it's cheap.

A beater car is still probably cheaper than an apartment. Also, you can't drive your slummy apartment away if you don't like the scene wherever it is, nor can it transport you to work. It's also some modicum of space wherein you can lock up what stuff you do own.

If I were placed under the terms of some very specific curse where I had to choose explicitly between a car and a house, I'm sorry to say I would be forced to choose my car. Actually, if I had my druthers I would probably pick my truck over my car, because despite its impracticality for daily transportation it's big enough to live in semi-comfortably as kind of a mini RV and would also allow me to store and transport some tools and stuff. (It'd also be much easier to use my truck to make money than a car, in some manner of hypothetical sudden destitution scenario.)

If you aren't an American, it may be difficult to understand.

Many cities here are very sprawled out and designed for cars, and therefore they're necessary for economic survival, perhaps more so than a home.

You can easily buy a used car for less than two months rent around here. Less if you shop around for a deal. That car provides transportation, shelter, and does not need to be repurchased every month.

A lot of homeless in America are people who had a decent paying job and lost it. So, they had some material wealth before becoming homeless and this could have included a car. At that point, people may prioritize the car because it provides transportation and shelter while the home only provides shelter. It is also likely that the car is cheaper than an apartment.

There are also a growing class of people who live out of their car and migrate across country during the year. A lot of these people are retired or have some disability insurance, want to travel, and see being alone on BLM land as preferable to living in a dying rust belt town.

Boys are being fed that college degrees are useless, and women are starting to attend college at slightly higher rates. From a realistic perspective, the costs are just crazy.

If I were a kid today, I’d totally go to vet school in Europe.

College costs are ridiculous.

Student loans are extortionate.

The ROI on the investment is shitty. IOW you get an expensive degree for a job field that doesn’t pay enough to pay for the degree and living expenses.

There’s a big social media anti-college push. Don’t know whether that’s politically motivated/propaganda, just get rich being a tiktokker or something, or a combination of that and all of the above.

This college doesn’t have the power to fix homelessness at the societal level, but they did have the power to do this. It’s a pretty awesome story.

It's not a solution, but as someone who slept in her car in a college parking lot because her father got pissed at her being around his house while queer, it's better than we'd had. I was afraid I would get in trouble for sleeping like that. Mind you, the main reason I couldn't sleep that night was that it was really fucking cold and it's really hard to sleep in a car.

Housing first is the best solution, but we also need humane solutions for short term homelessness. The "I left in the middle of the night and need a few days to get my bearings because things could go any humber of ways" type stuff. Shelters are so intimidating and have a reputation for being hostile to those that need them.

My college had a food bank, and as I think of this, they really could've had a shelter for students as well. Just a few dorm rooms done simple with literature on resources where if you need to stay there a few days you can. Instead I wasn't allowed to sleep on a student's couch for more than two consecutive nights.

That last paragraph hits really close to home for me. I'm like super privileged currently, but have been homeless while I was going to college. Sleeping in my car or any friend who would let me crash on their couch or closet floor. It really sucks and it's taxing physically & mentally.

Like a small jail cell would've been preferable to my car on cold nights. And yet I see so many people that have never experienced it properly claim that people need to earn it to feel better about themselves. Like fucking no they don't Trevor! Tell you what, you go try and sleep in the cold for a few nights and tell me how productive you are the next day!

You are totally correct, but there is something else: There are limits to everybodies agency. If you're somewhere in a college administration, you can't reroute those AI billions into housing for students. That's not going to happen. But you can try to help struggling students with the tools and powers you have and if it's a parking lot where they can sleep without fear that robbers or police will harass them, that's good! If you find a way to give leftover food from the cafeteria to hungry students, that's also great - even if there shouldn't be hungry students at all.

One of the most humane solutions is also the most economically efficient. Early intervention programs like rent/utility assistance are significantly cheaper in the long run than trying to rehabilitate people who have already lost everything and have a litany of health issues because of it. If conservatives really want to save money, they should be embracing "an ounce of prevention saves a pound of cure." Instead, they're stuck in wanting to SEE the desperation before even considering helping. Safety nets are major economic stimulus in the long run because it's much easier to attempt entrepeneurship if you aren't making a life and death gamble. But something tells me the currently wealthy know this and don't want competition popping up.

Then of course we also need to fix affordability issues, because unaffordable necessities put everyone at risk.

My point is that even if you mostly just care about efficient government and economic growth, you should still come to similar conclusions as "bleeding heart liberals." Conservatives don't come to those conclusions not by economic arguments, but because they fail to see the merit of collective problem solving. They want to have their own little castle with all their stuff that they can defend under penalty of death. We pretend the argument is about feasability and cost effectiveness, but the real issue is that they don't think that any proposal that would take anything from them or require giving is an option. That's why you see the economically destitute and ultra wealthy in an unholy alliance. Both of those groups are prone to wanting to circle the wagons and consider only the wellbeing of people in their little circle -- the poor out of desperation, and the wealthy out of possessiveness. Everyone not in their little circle is someone else's problem.